Divided court weighs voting provision

WASHINGTON, April 29 (UPI) -- A divided U.S. Supreme Court heard argument Wednesday on whether Southern states and other areas need permission from Washington to change voting procedures.

The core provision of the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act, section 2, bans all states from voting discrimination based on "race or color." The case before the high court involves section 5 of the act, which only targets states and areas with a history of racial discrimination in voting.

Under section 5, those states and smaller areas must seek permission, or "pre-clearance," from the U.S. Justice Department or the federal court in Washington before making changes in the voting process.

The case was brought by the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Texas, which wanted a statutory "bailout" from section 5, but also attacked the constitutionality of section 5, which was extended by Congress several times -- including an extension of 25 years in 2006.

The district's lawyer, Gregory Coleman, argued that conditions in Texas had changed so radically that "pre-clearance" was no longer needed. Justice David Souter and fellow liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed skepticism.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing vote, said that in requiring pre-clearance from covered jurisdictions, "Congress has made the finding that the sovereignty of Georgia" and other Southern states "is less than the sovereignty" of non-Southern states. "This is a great disparity of treatment. … You have a very great burden" to win the case.

Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued in favor of section 5. Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that less than 1/20th of 1 percent of pre-clearances were denied, indicating the provision sweeps too broadly.

Katyal said he disagreed, that the low number was evidence of deterrence.

"It's like the elephant whistle, to keep away the elephants," Roberts replied. "I have no elephants, so it must work."

Roberts also asked Debo Adegbile of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who supported Katyal, whether "Southerners more likely to discriminate than Northerners?"

"I think that's it's fair to say (there are) more patterns of discrimination in covered districts," Adegbile said. " … Congress has found, viewed through the lenses of history, that discrimination is repetitive."

The Supreme Court should rule on the case before retiring for the summer.

(NW Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 vs. Holder et al)